The Probability Of God Existing

[Jenyar]

You don't read Hebrew do you? It is easy to demonstrate in English. When I say "you", it could mean either singular "just you" or plural "you people". In another language this might be evident from the word alone. Also, you don't differentiate between the possessive and the indicative noun.

Yhwh Elohim = the Lord God
Adonai = our Lord/master
Yhwh = the Lord ("to exist, be") is the most common (about 7000 times)
God revealed Himself thus in Exodus 3:14-15 when He said:
"I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM [YHWH] has sent me to you.' "
15 God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers-the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob-has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.

You can also see a lot from the context:
Deuteronomy 10
17 For the LORD your God is God of gods (Elohay Elohim) and Lord of lords (Adonay HaAdonim), the great God (El Shaddai), mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.
Note, it does not say "God among gods". There is nothing contradictory about this.

Gen 7: 16 And they ... went in (into the ark) ... as God (Elohim) commanded him; and the Lord (Yhwh) shut him in.

Exodus 6:5 "I am YHWH. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as El Shaddai (God Almighty), but by my name YHWH I did not make myself known to them".

I don't think you an authority as the Hebrew use of singular or plural. The usage is consistent through the Bible, and always clear as to whom it refers to. Everybody calls their particular god "God" - that is not to say that they all refer to the same God. But in the Bible it is clear whose name is being used.

 

[EvilPoet]

Just for point of interest ...

Yahweh, modern reconstruction of YHWH, the ancient
Hebrew ineffable name for God . Other forms are Jah,
Jahve, Jahveh, Jahweh, Jehovah, Yahve, Yahveh, and
Yahwe.

Elohim, term used to designate the God of Israel. The
use of Elohim in Israel’s religious texts is an attempt to
treat the particular Hebrew God, Yahweh, in a more
general religious context.

Merodach, biblical form of the name of the god Marduk
of Babylon

Source: Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition

See also:
Judaism 101: The Name of God
Encyclopedia Mythica: Marduk

"Declare among the nations,
Proclaim, and set up a standard;
Proclaim--do not conceal it--
Say, "Babylon is taken, Bel is shamed.
Merodach is broken in pieces;
Her idols are humiliated,
Her images are broken in pieces."
-Jeremiah 50:2 (KJV)

"Declare among the nations, and procliam;
Raise the standard, proclaim;
Hide nothing! Say:
Babylon is captured
Bel is shamed,
Merodach is dismayed."
-Jeremiah 50:2 (Tanakh)

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Originally posted by thefountainhed
NEITHER OF U WHILE U LIVE OR ANYONE TO COME AFTER U WILL EVERRRRRRRRRRR EVRRRRRRRRRRR FIND THE ANSWER! So why even care? Put your resources to better use.

Perhaps we'll never find out, but that isn't going to stop people from trying. The quest for knowledge is rewarding in itself. If you prefer to use your resources differently, then that's your prerogative.

 

[SoSlick]

The Arguements For the Existence of God!

There have been historically three arguements for the existence of God:

1.The Cosmological
2.The Teleological
3.The Ontological

......................


The Cosmological arguement states that the fact that the universe exists is the proof for a God, or supreme being- theists believe that the universe cannot have come out of nothing, and someone therefore must have created it. The weakness in this argument therefore is that it poses the question who created God? This leads to an infinite regress.

Then we come on to the Teleological Arguement, this states that the Universe seems to exhibit a sense of order. The moon orbits the Earth around a specific computed model, an acorn becomes an oak, relavent portions of DNA are subjected at different areas of a body, the rest being unused etc. However a skeptic can argue that the apparent chaos in the universe perhaps outweighs the order in the universe. The apparent order may have been exxagerated at one point.

Finally we come to the ontologial arguement, which is also the theists strongest arguement out of the three. This states that if one can immagine a being that has all the desirable attributes, and has reached a state of "perfection" (It must be noted that what people say as being perfect in their everyday lives is in fact far from perfect, rather it is an exaggerated expression of emotion on a subject). Now if this being that you have conjurred up has every desirable chracteristic except that of existence, it is not the greatest or a perfect being, because obviously a being with all these charecteristics that DOES exist is more greater and more perfect than one that does not exist. The inventor of this argument was the Arcbishop of Canterbury St Anselm. Many atheists may dismiss this arguement as a paradox, or word play even - just like the story of Achilles and the Tortoise as proposed by Zeno of Elea.

However in my opinion, and I must state this is purely MY opinion, we as human beings lack sufficent knowledge to comprehend much of the world we live in let alone the universe. For example we must remeber Darwin's Theory of Evolution lays on 7 assumptions which cannot be proved, one of which being that life was spawned from non living matter. Just as people used to believe that the earth was flat, the Theory of Evoloution may NOT stand the test of time, and science.
Which brings me back to the point I was going to raise. God - even if the subject is dismissed as a theory or even speculation, has been evident from the dawn of human existence. Now as technology has developed, we still cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God. Immanuel Kant, who interestingly came up with a reasonable solution for the ontological arguement was famously noted for saying that he had ruled out knowledge for the existence of God to make room for faith. Philosophy rules out the KNOWLEDGE of existence of God, and NOT the EXISTENCE of God in itself.

In my opinion there are countless arguements in favour of a Creator, however I do not want to subject you with an essay, thus I want to conclude by saying that whatever knowledge we as humans have aquired, are through the senses of perception we have, i.e the world of phenomena. Anything that CANNOT be registered by our five senses-sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste, and by the equipment we have created, cannot be known to us. This is the noumenal world, and we cannot prove nor dissprove the existence of God because for all we know God exists in the transcedental state.

As human beings we have been given "free will", we can choose to place God within the realms of mathematics or we can choose to place God above mathmatical models. I believe that using Ockhams razor our existence can be explained easier with the existence of a divine, rather than an explanation without.

Consider dying tomorrow to be placed before the very being you denied the existence of. Hypothetical offcourse but its interesting none the less.



"It is thoroughly necessary to be convinced of God's existence, it is not quite so necessary that one should demonstrate it"

-Immanuel Kant



...

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Re: The Arguements For the Existence of God!

Originally posted by SoSlick
I believe that using Ockhams razor our existence can be explained easier with the existence of a divine, rather than an explanation without.

The whole purpose of Occam's Razor is to get rid of the unnecessary. We see the universe; we don't see God, nor do we have any good evidence for his existence. Therefore, God gets shaven off.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Probability of god existing?
Hmmmmm....
It is highly probable that there is a living organism out there in the universe that refers to himself as "god".
Although I must warn you that he might be making that "god" sound by compressing hydrogen in his nasal pouch and then releasing through his trumpet like snout by displacing his proboscis mandible.
Still, he would exist never the less

 

[SnakeLord]

God - even if the subject is dismissed as a theory or even speculation, has been evident from the dawn of human existence

Evident to who exactly?

 

[Jenyar]

Jade Squirrel,

Please be careful with Occam's Razor - you might cut yourself swinging it around like that . . .

 

[atheroy]

Now if this being that you have conjurred up has every desirable chracteristic except that of existence, it is not the greatest or a perfect being, because obviously a being with all these charecteristics that DOES exist is more greater and more perfect than one that does not exist.

ok, i take this as being reference to "god". and in that case that is why i find god so deplorable, he is FAR FAR FAR from perfect if he created this universe and us humans that live in it (as well as all the other animals on earth and the ones we don't know about on earth, and the ones we don't know about not on earth). there may be a god, but i am not going to follow "god" if he is truly represented in the bible because if he is he is far from the perfect being i would like to think had a hand in the creating of the universe.

 

[Jenyar]

Are you saying this because you don't think the universe is perfect?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Re: Re: The Arguements For the Existence of God!

Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
The whole purpose of Occam's Razor is to get rid of the unnecessary. We see the universe; we don't see God, nor do we have any good evidence for his existence. Therefore, God gets shaven off.

Occam's Razor has no relevance to the supernatural.

 

[ProCop]

i take this as being reference to "god". and in that case that is why i find god so deplorable, he is FAR FAR FAR from perfect if he created this universe and us humans that live in it (as well as all the other animals on earth and the ones we don't know about on earth, and the ones we don't know about not on earth). there may be a god, but i am not going to follow "god" if he is truly represented in the bible because if he is he is far from the perfect being i would like to think had a hand in the creating of the universe.

Something can be considered perfect only if it is totally what it should be. Because we do not know what the universe should be like we cannot make any judgement if it is perfect or not. The chance that universe is perfect is again 50% to 50% procent (we do not know).

 

[edgar]

Whats more value to you guys? Logic or Science?
In science you dont have "hard evidence" that god exists because in science you have observations. In 6th grade i learned the definition of observation "Using the 5 senses to study something."(something along those lines) But since we cant use the 5 senses to observe god, it is concluded in the scientific world that god doesnt exist.

Even though alot of logic is based on science.......it is still seperate.
It is logical to say that someone had to create the universe, since nothing is infinity.
It is logical to say some one has to control the universe because if it is just random then all the laws of nature can be broken randomely.

Those may not be good examples...but you prolly see where im getting at.
Logic is based on our observations, but if your shallow...then u will never see passed it. You wont draw conclusions, you will always have to see it to believe it.

If your more deeper then you wont base everything on your senses. You will infer and draw conclusions. You will look past the observations,data, and ask your self questions. You will question the beliefs of others.

From all this crap i conclude that some stuff that seems logical to people may seem illogical to others.

I believe in god through faith and personal things. I believe because others have told me about healings. I base my conclusions on my own thinking though and i drew a conclusion. God exists.

 

[Balerion]

This has turned into the worst thread on the website. Nobody is putting forth any real knowledge, simply throwing wild speculations out there, and trying to pass opinion off as fact. What a load of bullshit.

theists believe that the universe cannot have come out of nothing, and someone therefore must have created it. The weakness in this argument therefore is that it poses the question who created God? This leads to an infinite regress.

Ok...can you grasp that theists are NOT scientists? NONE of their arguments have any scientific foundation. They simply say the universe "Could not have" come from nothing, becuase to say that there was nothing before this is a wild idea. Well, yeah, it is, and hard to imagine, but it's based on evidence. There is proof that leads scientists to believe this.

What really bugs me is that people believe there is actually an argument here. There is no argument. Science does not follow the God model, or the Creation model, becuase they have absolutely ZERO evidence of either event. They, unlike millions of morons in the world, do not believe the words of one book to be the ultimate truth.

Even though alot of logic is based on science.......it is still seperate.

No it isn't. YOUR logic obviously is, but logic itself is not any different, becuase it is based on things that "must be as evidence by the surroundings" like, for instance, I could look at that quote and tell that you.......really can't have logic on your side of the God argument.

It is logical to say that someone had to create the universe, since nothing is infinity.

Ok...that is so assinine...I'll say the exact same thing you did, but I'll change up the variables....

"It is logical to say that appple trees poop oranges, since homosexuals are blue."

Logic is based on our observations, but if your shallow...then u will never see passed it. You wont draw conclusions, you will always have to see it to believe it.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!! I've never heard "Shallow" used as a compliment! Thanks!

Origionally by SoSlick
Just as people used to believe that the earth was flat, the Theory of Evoloution may NOT stand the test of time, and science.
Which brings me back to the point I was going to raise. God - even if the subject is dismissed as a theory or even speculation, has been evident from the dawn of human existence.

Ok, your thinking is way off here. Evolution is a proven, observed fact. It will always stand the test of time. And this God you speak of has NOT been evident EVER, becuase it is not proven and never will be. As a matter of fact, the book you base your belief on, is based on writing by other cultures long before it which never said that there was one god, or Jesus Christ, or anything but beings from another planet. THAT is fact, THAT is evident, not God. What the shit makes you say that God has been evident from the dawn of human existance? Who the fuck said that? Honestly! Nice way to just make something up to prove a point!

JD

 

[Persol]

Originally posted by edgar
Whats more value to you guys? Logic or Science?
They are both useful.

In science you dont have "hard evidence" that god exists because in science you have observations. But since we cant use the 5 senses to observe god, it is concluded in the scientific world that god doesnt exist.
We accept many things which we can not directly observe with the five sense. God is the same way. If he was interacting with the enviroment, we would at the very least see the results of his action.

Even though alot of logic is based on science.......it is still seperate.
Logic is not based on science. Science is based on logic. You can't have science without logic.

It is logical to say that someone had to create the universe, since nothing is infinity.
This is nonsense. Take a class on logic before you spout off. I could just as easily say "it is logical to say that nothing created the universe, because nothing can be infinite (including the creator)". This comment makes just as much sense, in that it makes none.

It is logical to say some one has to control the universe because if it is just random then all the laws of nature can be broken randomely.
Look up the definition of random. Even if there was a creator, there is no reason why it would have to control everything. We puny humans can create systems which obey rules we define, are random, and don't require intervention.

Those may not be good examples...but you prolly see where im getting at.
No... I don't.

Logic is based on our observations, but if your shallow...then u will never see passed it. You wont draw conclusions, you will always have to see it to believe it.
I am willing to accept what others have knowledge about. However NOBODY has demonstrate direct knowledge of a God anymore then they have of Zeus... and they are both mutually exclusive.

You will look past the observations,data, and ask your self questions.
Scientists do that currently. Hense the reason we have theories which do not invole direct observation.

You will question the beliefs of others.
It seems we already are.

From all this crap i conclude that some stuff that seems logical to people may seem illogical to others.
Logic does not work this way.

 

[atheroy]

Are you saying this because you don't think the universe is perfect?

i'm saying this because if god is perfect, he is grossly misrepresented in the bible- and to the universe, i have no idea. i think those pictures they take from the hubble and such are fantastic, i would have no idea if the universe is perfect or otherwise (though stricty speaking i would say it is not perfect).

Something can be considered perfect only if it is totally what it should be. Because we do not know what the universe should be like we cannot make any judgement if it is perfect or not. The chance that universe is perfect is again 50% to 50% procent (we do not know).

i'm not sure the universe "should be like" anything. i think you're making a human presumtion that something can only be perfect if it works in the confines in that which it was created. i don't know thosoe so don't ask me

It is logical to say that someone had to create the universe, since nothing is infinity. It is logical to say some one has to control the universe because if it is just random then all the laws of nature can be broken randomely.

say what? i think your logic is a bit flawed but i don't think those assumptions have been thought through properly.

Logic is based on our observations, but if your shallow...then u will never see passed it. You wont draw conclusions, you will always have to see it to believe it.

fair enough, perhaps. though i haven't seen evolution before my very eyes, i've seen evidence, so i draw the conclusion the evolution exists.

From all this crap i conclude that some stuff that seems logical to people may seem illogical to others.

fair enough- everyone is different, if they weren't we'd all see one point of view. that would be mega boring. happily we're all different though and can argue each others logic or whatever.

I believe in god through faith and personal things. I believe because others have told me about healings. I base my conclusions on my own thinking though and i drew a conclusion. God exists.

show me a real healing and i'll research it thoroughly, then show you what i have concluded. but seeing so many of these healings are nothing but total shams i'm not sure it would be worth it.

 

[ProCop]

REersol

I am willing to accept what others have knowledge about. However NOBODY has demonstrate direct knowledge of a God anymore then they have of Zeus... and they are both mutually exclusive.

mututally exclusive ...you wouldn't be willing to discard relativity and quantum theorie on the same basis would you?

 

[SoSlick]

Originally posted by JDawg

Ok...can you grasp that theists are NOT scientists? NONE of their arguments have any scientific foundation. They simply say the universe "Could not have" come from nothing, becuase to say that there was nothing before this is a wild idea. Well, yeah, it is, and hard to imagine, but it's based on evidence. There is proof that leads scientists to believe this.
JD

Show me the proof...

Originally posted by JDawg

What really bugs me is that people believe there is actually an argument here. There is no argument. Science does not follow the God model, or the Creation model, becuase they have absolutely ZERO evidence of either event. They, unlike millions of morons in the world, do not believe the words of one book to be the ultimate truth.
JD

No evidence does not mean it doesn't exist, I'm going to blind you with a screwdriver in both eyes and lock you in a large empty room which has "God Exists" written on the wall in small letters with invisible ink....prove to me that there is or isn't writing on the wall.

The example is redundant, but the fact is you can't prove that there is or isn't writing on the wall if you're blind, even though there IS writing on the wall, and can be proved by someone with clear vision going into the room with a UV lamp.

Just as in my example, just because we can't prove it, doesn't mean a thing.

Originally posted by JDawg

Ok, your thinking is way off here. Evolution is a proven, observed fact. It will always stand the test of time.
JD

1. Not all scientists mutually agree on this.

2. You must be a fortune teller because you seem to be able to PREDICT the future.

Originally posted by JDawg

And this God you speak of has NOT been evident EVER, becuase it is not proven and never will be.
JD

What I meant to say was that the BELIEF has always been evident.

Originally posted by JDawg

As a matter of fact, the book you base your belief on, is based on writing by other cultures long before it which never said that there was one god, or Jesus Christ, or anything but beings from another planet.
JD

1. What makes you think I base my belief of God on a book? You ASSUMED that didn't you even though you have no shred of evidence to back it, just like all the "morons" who argue in favour of God

Originally posted by JDawg

THAT is fact, THAT is evident, not God. What the shit makes you say that God has been evident from the dawn of human existance? Who the fuck said that? Honestly! Nice way to just make something up to prove a point!
JD

1. What I was trying to say was that the BELIEF in God or God's has been evident from the dawn of human existence.

2. The BELIEF in God(s) existence has been evident since the dawn of human existence....and thats a FACT.

3. I wasn't trying to prove a point, I was stating FACTS.

Originally posted by JDawg

Ok...that is so assinine...I'll say the exact same thing you did, but I'll change up the variables....
JD

Asinine is spelt with one s.



...Have a nice day

 

[edgar]

you cant prove evolution because their is no physicall proof. Several old bones similar to ones found today doesnt mean that an animal evolved into another. It could just be another animal that went extinct. Thats why its called the THEORY of Evolution.

 

[EvilPoet]

Originally posted by edgar
Thats why its called the THEORY of Evolution.

"In science, a theory is a model of reality, used for rationalizing, explaining, predicting, and mastering physical phenomena. There is a major difference between the use of the term by scientists and by the general public. In general use, the term theory implies that something is not backed by observation, while in the scientific usage, there is no such implication. In science a supposition which is not backed by observation is known as a conjecture, and if backed by some observation it is called an hypothesis. In mathematics, a theory is a set of statements closed under logical implication." [More...]